Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Specific role attributed to the accused in the FIR – High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC by quashing the FIR without considering the allegations properly – Reliance on draft charge-sheet which was not yet submitted to the Magistrate was inappropriate – High Court's order set aside [Paras 20-21, 23].

Draft Charge-sheet – Inadmissibility – High Court cannot rely on a draft charge-sheet for quashing an FIR – Investigation and charge-sheet submission process must follow due procedure, and draft charge-sheet has no legal standing until submitted to the Magistrate [Paras 20-21].

Concurrent Findings – High Court's overreach – High Court's approach in treating the investigation process akin to appellate review led to erroneous quashing of the FIR – Proper exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC necessitates careful consideration of allegations in the FIR without unwarranted interference [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment quashing the FIR set aside – FIR and consequential proceedings to continue in accordance with law [Paras 27-28].

Service Law – Misconduct – Quantum of Punishment – Respondent, a CRPF constable, misbehaved, abused, and injured a doctor on duty and made false criminal charges of sexual harassment against the doctor – High Court substituted the penalty of removal from service with confinement in quarter guard jail – Supreme Court held that the punishment by the disciplinary authority was appropriate and not shockingly disproportionate – High Court's interference in the penalty was unwarranted [Paras 21-26].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope – The scope of judicial review on the quantum of punishment is limited – Courts should not substitute their own decision for that of the disciplinary authority unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate – The High Court's substitution of the penalty was beyond its jurisdiction [Paras 22-25].

Penalty Proportionality – Serious Misconduct – Given the gravity of the misconduct, the penalty of removal from service was justified – Misconduct in disciplined forces like CRPF demands strict penalties to maintain discipline [Paras 21-24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment substituting the penalty of removal from service set aside – Respondent's removal from service upheld [Paras 29-30].

Real Estate Regulation – Pre-deposit Requirement for Appeals – The requirement under Section 43(5) for promoters to deposit at least 30% of the penalty or the total amount to be paid to the allottee including interest and compensation before an appeal is heard is not violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. This pre-deposit ensures that the determined amount is safeguarded if the appeal fails, thus protecting homebuyers' interests [Paras 122-137]​​​​.

Real Estate Projects – Mandatory Registration –Sections 3 and 3(1) mandate prior registration of real estate projects with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, including ongoing projects without completion certificates. This provision is prospective in application and does not violate vested rights. It ensures transparency and accountability in the real estate sector, protecting the interests of both promoters and homebuyers [Paras 6-10, 138-140]​​.

Delegation of Authority – The Real Estate Regulatory Authority can delegate its powers to a single member for deciding complaints under Section 31. This delegation is valid under Section 81 and necessary for the expeditious disposal of complaints [Paras 111-120]​​.

Statutory Provisions –The court also considered the adequacy of remedies provided under the Act for allottees and the conditions imposed on promoters, including the requirement of pre-deposit for appeals and the distinction between refund and compensation claims [Paras 70-76]​​.

Decision: Appeals dismissed. The conditions imposed by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, including pre-deposit requirements and registration mandates, are upheld as valid and constitutional.

Tenancy Law – Actual Physical Possession – The expression "actual physical possession of land and building" under Section 2(4)(ii)(b) of the Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, requires the tenant to be in actual physical possession. Tenants who have sublet the building or given the premises on leave and licence basis are not entitled to protection and benefit under the Tenants Act [Paras 1-28]​​.

Eviction Proceedings – Writ Jurisdiction – The relief of eviction sought by the appellant could not be granted in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, given the statutory protections available under the Tenants Act. The High Court’s decision to relegate the appellant to alternative legal remedies was upheld [Paras 1-28]​​.

Decision -Appeal allowed. The respondents are directed to vacate and hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the premises to the appellant within three months. The respondents are also directed to pay arrears of market rent from December 31, 2009, until the date of delivery of possession. Costs of Rs. 100,000/- awarded to the appellant​​.

Environmental Law – Sand Mining –The National Green Tribunal's (NGT) direction that sand mining in Bihar must be approved by the SEAC and SEIAA based on the DSR was challenged. The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in its judgment, asserting that developmental activities should not be stalled and that legal mining should continue to prevent illegal activities and loss to the exchequer. The Supreme Court modified the NGT's directions, allowing the State Government to carry out mining activities through the Bihar State Mining Corporation with interim measures until proper DSRs are finalized and approved [Paras 1-14]​​.

Sustainable Development –The Court emphasized the need for a balanced approach to sustainable development, which includes environmental safeguards while also allowing for the continuation of necessary developmental activities. The interim arrangement permits legal mining under stringent environmental safeguards to prevent illegal mining and ensure public and private construction activities are not hampered [Paras 7-8]​​.

Procedure for DSR Preparation –The Supreme Court directed that the DSRs should be prepared by sub-divisional committees comprising officers from various state departments, instead of private consultants, to ensure proper site visits and use of modern technology. This approach would prevent unnecessary public expenditure and ensure compliance with environmental guidelines [Paras 10-13]​​.

Decision- Appeal allowed in part. The directions of the NGT were modified, and the State of Bihar was permitted to continue legal sand mining activities through the Bihar State Mining Corporation, subject to environmental safeguards. The preparation and approval of DSRs were to be undertaken as per the Court's guidelines [Paras 14-24]​​.

Negotiable Instruments – Dishonor of Cheque – A complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by a Managing Director on behalf of a company is not liable to be dismissed merely because the Managing Director's name appears first followed by the company's name. The essential requirement is that the complaint indicates it is filed on behalf of the company, supported by a Board Resolution authorizing the filing of the complaint. The format of the complaint, though not perfect, is not fundamentally defective if the intention to file on behalf of the company is clear [Paras 1-28]​​.

Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act – The presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act stands unless rebutted by the drawer. The absence of any alternative explanation by the respondent strengthens the case of the complainant [Paras 17-27]​​.

Authorization – A complaint made on behalf of a company must be supported by proper authorization. The Managing Director, being in charge of day-to-day affairs, can file a complaint, and this can be supported by a Board Resolution. A true copy of the resolution suffices, even if unsigned by the directors [Paras 24-26]​​.

Decision- Appeal allowed. The impugned orders of the trial court and the High Court are set aside. The complaint was properly instituted by the Managing Director on behalf of the company. The respondent is sentenced to imprisonment for one year and a fine twice the amount of the cheque, with the sentence suspended if the respondent pays a further sum of Rs.160,000/- within two months [Paras 28-30]​​.

Arbitration – Setting Aside of Arbitral Award – Appellant challenged the decision to set aside an arbitral award – The dispute arose from the sale of shares and a subsequent deed of settlement – High Court set aside the award on grounds that the arbitrator's conclusions were not in accordance with the fundamental policy of Indian law – Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, holding that the 2015 amendment to Section 34 applies only to applications made after 23.10.2015 – Section 34 proceedings commenced before the amendment are subject to the pre-2015 legal position – Clause 9 of the Deed of Settlement cannot be construed to change the applicable law for Section 34 proceedings [Paras 1-39].

Arbitration Clause – Interpretation – The phrase "any amendment thereto" in the arbitration clause does not mean that amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, would apply retrospectively to proceedings that commenced before the amendment – The court emphasized the importance of the legislative intent behind Section 26 of the 2015 Amendment Act, which is to apply the amendments prospectively unless agreed otherwise by the parties [Paras 25-31].

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Applicability – 2015 amendment restricts grounds for setting aside arbitral awards – However, proceedings commenced before 23.10.2015 are governed by pre-amendment standards – Courts must ensure that amendments do not disrupt settled expectations unless explicitly stated [Paras 19-24].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment to set aside the arbitral award upheld – Arbitrator's conclusions not in accordance with fundamental policy of Indian law as per pre-2015 interpretation of Section 34 – No costs awarded [Paras 32-39].

Land Acquisition – Interpretation of Limitation Period – Whether the two-year period under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applies post-repeal, or the twelve-month period under Section 25 of the 2013 Act applies – Court held that Section 25 of the 2013 Act governs awards made under Section 24(1)(a) – Limitation period for making awards commences from 1st January 2014 – Excludes periods during which court orders inhibited action [Paras 1-21, 40].

Savings Clause – Application of Section 6 of General Clauses Act – Section 114 of the 2013 Act repeals the 1894 Act but saves proceedings initiated under it – Savings subject to provisions of the 2013 Act – Ensures continuity while applying new compensation rules [Paras 7-10].

Award Validity – Effect of Court Orders – Stay orders and their effect on limitation periods – Periods of stay are to be excluded when computing limitation periods – Ensures fair administration and compliance with legal mandates [Paras 22-30].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Acquisition proceedings held not lapsed – Awards declared valid – Inquiry into alleged manipulation and backdating of awards suggested for remedial action [Paras 31-41].

Criminal Law – Conviction based on Disclosure Statement – Appellant convicted based on disclosure statement and recovery of inculpatory material – Court held that while an accused can be convicted on the basis of a disclosure statement, the recovery must be unimpeachable and not doubtful – Factors such as the interval between the offense and disclosure, the commonality and transferability of the recovered object, and the credibility of witnesses must be considered – Prosecution failed to inspire confidence in the recovery process – Appellant acquitted as guilt not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-21].

Benefit of Doubt – Doctrine – Court emphasized the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that it is better for ten guilty persons to escape than for one innocent person to suffer – Prosecution's failure to prove guilt beyond doubt warrants acquittal [Paras 17-18].

Evidentiary Standards – Independent Witnesses – Court noted the importance of credible independent witnesses – Testimonies of key prosecution witnesses were inconsistent and unreliable – Recovery of common objects like money and cloth with no unique identifiers insufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 14-19].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Convictions by Trial Court and High Court set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Bail bond discharged [Paras 22].